Comment Re:Maybe it is time... (Score 2, Funny) 97
An iTunes Gift Card that will only download "Never Gonna Give You Up"?
An iTunes Gift Card that will only download "Never Gonna Give You Up"?
Or, at the very least, disable all uploading ability on YouTube or posting ability on Blogger or any other user-contributed Google sites from Italian users, citing this case and the unwillingness of Google to accept any more user submissions from Italian users until the case is resolved. I think that would be totally fair and completely within Google's rights.
Google could do that, but That's precisely what Berlusconi wants in the first place: complete control over all media in Italy. It would send more of a message to stop accepting advertisements by Italians, so Google can claim no Italian revenue and pay no Italian taxes.
That's a great question, and I suspect that the answer to this is buried somewhere in all the court paperwork. Call me lazy: I RTFA, but I didn't real all of the court documentation...
Here are some ways that it _could_ work fairly:
1.) An amount set by the clearinghouse. The clearinghouse would act on behalf of (and in the interest of) the owner and set the price.
2.) An amount set by congress.
3.) An amount determined by a long-term auction (determining how much buyers are willing to pay) by the seller.
4.) An amount determined by a long-term auction by the clearinghouse.
In the case of orphaned works, so long as "due diligence" to collect fair proceeds for the sale of the work has occurred, I'm not actually worried that the owner of the work doesn't eventually collect what they actually wanted. Chances are, the money they receive will be more than they would have received otherwise. Plus, once they register as the work's owner, they can begin to set their own price.
The fastest way to get as much into the Public Domain as soon as possible is to abandon copyright, therefore I cannot agree with your premise.
I believe that Copyright exists to provide a person with the legal right of control over works which they own (and recourse should their control be usurped) up to a reasonable point, when the ownership is transferred to the state. That "reasonable point" has been debated and extended over time, complicating our current system.
Abandonware, or orphaned works, don't have a legal entity beyond works which do not have an identifiable owner, however so long as we have a date for the work's creation the work is still subject to that "reasonable point", and any time an owner can be identified, the work is no longer abandoned or orphaned.
If your principle of abandonware were instituted, how would a work be declared as abandonware, and how would you deal with the situation when the owner of an abandoned work comes forward after-the-fact?
That's a gross misrepresentation of Google's position, which is significantly complicated such that it can't be easily distilled into two sentences.. Here's a more adequate summary of my interpretation of Google's position:
Other people's properties can be digitally distributed. When a property owner can be identified, that owner has the right to set a price for sale or opt their property out of further distribution. When a property owner cannot be identified, proceeds will be collected for each sale, and that amount less administrative costs for the distribution are held by a third party until such time as the actual property owner stakes their claim on their property. At that time, the property owner can gain the same rights over distribution of their property as anyone else who has been identified as a property owner, and all parties who make use of the unidentified property owner clearing house will be obligated to abide by the property owner's decisions.
Monopoly power doesn't exist, because any property owner may opt to use any other distribution channel for their property, and all property that is being copied and distributed by Google can also be copied and distributed by any other party who desires to take the effort to scan the original work and transmit proceeds to the third party property owner clearing house for any property which they haven't explicitly gained the right to distribute.
You're correct that this principle can be applied to any other media. I see no reason why it shouldn't.
Because they're busy not doing other things.
I guess this explains why so many "first post"s actually aren't...
Only if you're not a nerd. SlashDot is News for Nerds...
Let me get this straight...
You think it's good that competition is increased for a company so big as Google... by a company that is larger than Google with a monopolistic history?
That just doesn't seem logical to me. I'm all for increasing competition for Google and I don't even mind that some of the competition comes from former monopolies, but what I'd really like to see is the little guys out there innovating.
Ironically, I've yet to see a "white" person who was actually white. Even albinos are some shade of pink...
In order to follow someone on Google Buzz, the person you follow has to have a public profile. Try creating a new gmail account, opting out of Buzz, not going through with the profile setup, and then following the new account with the old one. Buzz won't let you do that last part.
But it doesn't create a profile for you, so even though you have a feed, no one can follow you. And if someone opts to skip the Buzz set-up process, are they really going to post something to your feed or begin following someone else?
So much buzz about nothing...
Yeah, I totally agree. The guy who designed that Buzz icon totally needs to be punished for contributing to the project. He had a responsibility to make sure that the launch went off without a hitch and in accordance with your desires that he didn't live up to. He definitely needs to lose his job.
Bah. Google's launch of Buzz broke nothing. It was your choice to try Buzz. When entering Gmail and given a choice, you clicked the "opt-in" button instead of the "opt-out" button. Followers weren't added until after you clicked the button. Did you read all the available, Google-provided information about what would happen when you opted in, or did you just say, "Oh neat! A new toy!"
You could have continued to use Gmail just as you were, with no changes and no Buzz.
Take some responsibility for your own actions and lack of investigation.
You blame Gmail for adding Buzz when it wasn't what you "signed up for", and yet you take no responsibility for the fact that you chose to click the "Yes, I'd like to try Buzz" button when entering Gmail. You had the option to click "No, thanks", but you didn't.
I have no sympathy for you. Perhaps you should first have tried to find out what turning on Buzz would do?
After Goliath's defeat, giants ceased to command respect. - Freeman Dyson